Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/12/2001 9:56:00 AM EDT
...for the 'la-dee-da' way his administration conducted its foreign policy, especially that foreign policy relating to 'terrorism.' Clinton played with our military response as if it were just another lawyer's gambit from a bag of tricks used solely to distract the jury (or should I say 'grand jury' in Clinton's case). See the story at:[url]http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24434[/url] Just remember folks [size=3]'it's just about sex!'[/size=3] Eric The([u]And[/u],Apparently,OurNationalSecurity!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 10:12:39 AM EDT
As much as I dislike Slick and his arrogant wife, I don't think he did any worse of a job going after terrorists than his predecessors did. All these Presidents who've been stung by terrorist attacks use the same language: "We will find those responsible and bring them to justice." Who else but our own homegrown terrorist, Tim McVeigh, has been sent to meet his Maker? Where's the beef (deterrent)? So, the problem continually gets worse. Unless Doobya finds some gonads that none of his predecessors sported, the next attack will be nuclear or biological and take out hundreds of thousands. Right now, I can't see Doobya authorizing anything other than the standard "surgical" strike or cruise missile volley that may or may not work but will be designed to avoid civilian and US casualties. I pray I am wrong. If Doobya can't pull the trigger on the right weapon the right number of times, he will be no better than Clinton. "No better than Clinton" means Doobya leaves the next President even more vulnerable than Clinton left him.
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 10:41:59 AM EDT
Post from the Commissioner -
As much as I dislike Slick and his arrogant wife, I don't think he did any worse of a job going after terrorists than his predecessors did.
View Quote
Think a bit. Think President Ronald Reagan. Do I need to provide any details? Let me know! Eric The(ReaganWasTheMan!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 11:12:44 AM EDT
Reagan was the master of announcing we were coming after you, momments before we got there.
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 11:47:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Think a bit. Think President Ronald Reagan. Do I need to provide any details? Let me know!
View Quote
Please provide the details on how Osama Bin Laden was watching television when President Reagan avenged the Islamic suicide truck driver who murdered the Marines in Beirut, thus making sure he and no one else would ever attack Americans in cold blood. Please provide the details to prove how Osama Bin Laden wet his pants when President Reagan sent troops to the powerful terrorist harbor of Grenada to liberate medical students and teach the Cubans not to build airfields outside of Cuba. Please provide the details on all the things President Reagan did to assure that Osama Bin Laden and his predecessors would rather dig the turds out of a pig's ass with their tongues than organize, finance, and execute terrorist actions including but not limited to WTC I, Khobar Towers, Achille Lauro, etc. President Reagan may have made a believer out of Ghaddafi but it didn't transfer to the others. Bottom line, the ante keeps going up and our Presidents, including Reagan, fail to wipe out the terrorists despite holding the superior hand. President Reagan performed like a national hero in bringing the Soviet Union to its knees. But the same cannot be said for what he or his successors did to scare terrorists back under their rocks. Dealing with terrorists means more than giving them a Bible and a cake. Make no mistake, I am a big fan of President Reagan. The time I shook his hand and spoke with him is one of my greatest and fondest memories. But he and his successors haven't reacted strong enough when the opportunity presented itself.
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 12:06:39 PM EDT
Wow, I'll be happy to dig up these details Mr. Commissioner when I get home this evening. You can bet your sweet bippy I'll give you the details concerning Mr. Reagan's action vis-a-vis Osama Bin Laden! I'll even throw in details on his actions against other terrorists, just in case Bin Laden (born in 1957) was occupied during the Reagan Presidency! When you were busy shaking his hand, did you happen to mention any of his numerous failings in dealing with terrorists to him on a personal level? No? I thought not! But I'll return later. Eric The(WhyNotWait20YearsToBitch!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 12:12:29 PM EDT
Look forward to it! [:D]
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 12:18:41 PM EDT
Regardless, if Klinton's new offices had been in the WTC instead of Harlem......
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 1:10:57 PM EDT
While is may certainly make one feel better to blame Clinton for this problem, in reality the lack of Human Intelligence and other capabilities can in fact be traced back to the early 70s when the Church Committee ripped the CIA for its covert actions and demoralized the CIA into a much more passive role. Human assets can easily take 10 years to cultivate and be able to move into the correct place for the gathering of intelligence.
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 1:22:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TheCommissioner: Please provide the details on how Osama Bin Laden was watching television when President Reagan avenged the Islamic suicide truck driver who murdered the Marines in Beirut, thus making sure he and no one else would ever attack Americans in cold blood.
View Quote
Was Osama even an active terrorist back then? More generally, you seem to think that it is possible for a president to perform some act that will end all terrorism forever. Kinda reminds me of soccer mom logic: oh, yeah, the government can really make life safe for all of us. The fact is, terrorism is here, and here to stay. Security and retaliation will work sometimes, but not all the time. And it doesn't matter how clever the president is. The best way of reducing terrorism is to avoid forign intervention, but we are so stuck with our fingers all over the world it would take us years to get out even if we decided to. And even if we were not involved in the affairs of other nations, our prosperity would still invite some terrorist attacks.
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 1:27:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TheCommissioner: As much as I dislike Slick and his arrogant wife, I don't think he did any worse of a job going after terrorists than his predecessors did.
View Quote
Clinton horribly mismanaged the Palistinian/Israeli peace talks, and he engaged in nasty little attacks like the bombing of the Sudan factory. He handled things poorly indeed. In fact, Clinton sorta inverted the Teddy Roosevelt philoshophy of "speaking softly and carring a big stick".
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 1:31:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By gus: Regardless, if Klinton's new offices had been in the WTC instead of Harlem......
View Quote
Too bad... (sigh)
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 1:38:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TheCommissioner: As much as I dislike Slick and his arrogant wife, I don't think he did any worse of a job going after terrorists than his predecessors did.
View Quote
With the exception of Carter, who else did so much to cut the legs out from under the intelligence community? It was already weakened when he got there and he made is worse. Lets see, he did blow a pharmaceutical plant. And I guess we can’t forget local terrorist groups that he wiped out in Waco and at Ruby Ridge. Yeah…Yeah! I guess he wasn’t any worse than his predecessors.
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 1:46:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DonS: Was Osama even an active terrorist back then?
View Quote
Chances are he was an impressionable ideologue looking for ways to turn his hatred for America/Israel into action. Obviously nothing he ever saw deterred him from his murderous ways. But we can say the same thing about criminals in Texas who regularly see news reports of executions of death row inmates. Mark Halprin, writing here [url]http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/mhelprin/?id=95001104[/url] says, [i]That we have promised retaliation for decades and then always drawn back, hoping that we could get through if we simply did not provoke the enemy, is appeasement, and it must be quite clear by now even to those who perpetually appease that appeasement simply does not work. Therefore, what must be done? Above all, we must make no promise of retaliation that is not honored; in this we have erred too many times. It is a bipartisan failing and it should never be repeated. [/i] This is the point I have been trying to make in this thread. Presidents from both parties haven't shown the leadership and decisive action necessary to demonstrate to all terrorists and wannabes that the price of murder will be more than they can bear. Let's encourage President Bush to do what it takes to be harshly criticized for "overreacting" to the latest incident.
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 2:16:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TheCommissioner: Chances are he (Osama) was an impressionable ideologue looking for ways to turn his hatred for America/Israel into action. Obviously nothing he ever saw deterred him from his murderous ways.
View Quote
I'm not convinced [i]anything[/i] would have deterred him. Certainly, the terrorists who flew the planes were not deterred by death.
Originally Posted By TheCommissioner: Mark Halprin, . . . says, [i]That we have promised retaliation for decades and then always drawn back, hoping that we could get through if we simply did not provoke the enemy, is appeasement, [/i]
View Quote
In fact, we have struck back. I don't think what we have done can be called appeasment, although the Europeans have certainly tried that path. I believe we have not done a good enough job fighting terrorism, but I also believe we have stoked it with our various forign adventures. We should react as swiftly and violently to those who attack us, but we should also avoid messing in the affairs of others, so that we don't give them reason to attack us.
Originally Posted By TheCommissioner: This is the point I have been trying to make in this thread. Presidents from both parties haven't shown the leadership and decisive action necessary to demonstrate to all terrorists and wannabes that the price of murder will be more than they can bear.
View Quote
As we have seen, some of these people are willing to bear quite a bit. In order for attacks on terrorists to be effective, we must first locate them. That isn't always easy to do.
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 2:59:07 PM EDT
The past administration is guilty of many acts of treason against America. The lack of response to multiple terrorist attacks by the same man/organization is just one. How many people died when the truck bomb at Kobar Towers exploded in Saudi Arabia? What was done? How many people died from the embassy bombings in Africa? How many died in the bombing of the USS Cole? Lets go back a little farther... how many people died in the original World Trade Center bombing(which didn't work as planned thank God?) Does anyone see a pattern here? This animal along with all of his associates should have been killed with extreme prejudice a long time ago. Why have Americans had to die again before the sheep in this country woke up and smelled the wolves among them?
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 3:33:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2001 3:33:55 PM EDT by ar50troll]
Originally Posted By DonS: I'm not convinced [i]anything[/i] would have deterred him. Certainly, the terrorists who flew the planes were not deterred by death.
View Quote
I can tell you what could have stopped this. An armed citizen on those God damned planes. I have a carry permit... I would not be opposed to a "Level 2" type permit that allows greater carry capability, such as PLANES. It is not unreal to think we can permit a citizen to have the right to carry on a plane. If we had enjoyed this right, the mere knowledge of this would act as a deterrent. If it did not deter, then there would be a person in a position to REACT when the hijacking began. We are the damn poeple. At one time we had the right to defend from tyrrany!!! See what happens Klinton!!! You killed many more people than my "Assault Weapon" ever could.
Top Top